JUDGMENT : Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against an award dated 28th June, 2007 passed by the learned Judge, VIIth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in M.J.C. Case No. 298 of 2003 at the instance of the claimant/appellant. 2. The claimant/appellant was injured in a motor accident caused by a vehicle (chartered bus) bearing no. W.B.R. 2396 on 1st August, 2003. He was hospitalised and ultimately his right leg was amputated above knee, resulting in his permanent disablement. Doctor has certified his permanent disablement to the extent of 80%. He was a mechanical fitter under the employment of Garden Reach Ship Builders & Engineers. At the time of occurrence of such accident he used to draw salary of Rs. 11,505/-. He claimed that in addition to the salary, he used to earn a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month on an average on account of his overtime allowance. He claimed that he was 51 years old at the time of the accident. He filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 13,00,000/-. 3. Since the offending vehicle was insured under a policy of insurance issued by the National Insurance Company Limited, the National Insurance Company Limited was also impleaded as a party in the said proceeding. The learned Tribunal while assessing the compensation payable to the claimant held that since he did not lose service even after the said accident, he did not suffer any pecuniary loss as he received full salary during the service period. The learned Trial Judge, however, held that since he could not render any overtime duty on account of his physical disability after the said accident, he suffered a loss of income to the extent of Rs. 3000/- per month. The learned Trial Judge, after considering different documents submitted in support of the age of the claimant in the said proceeding, came to the conclusion that the victim was aged about 55 years at the time of such accident. Thus, the learned Trial Judge held that 8 is the appropriate multiplier in the instant case as per the 2nd schedule of 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. After considering the percentage of disability of the victim to the extent of 80%, the learned Trial Judge held that the loss of earning of the claimant was Rs. 2,30,400/-. In addition thereto a sum of Rs. After considering the percentage of disability of the victim to the extent of 80%, the learned Trial Judge held that the loss of earning of the claimant was Rs. 2,30,400/-. In addition thereto a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was allowed on account of pain and sufferings of the claimant. A further sum of Rs. 15,000/- was allowed on account of his medical expenses. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 2,50,400/- was awarded on account of compensation in favour of the claimant. Since a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was received by the claimant under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the learned Trial Judge directed the insurance company to pay the balance amount of Rs. 2,25,400/- to the claimant/appellant. The appellant is not satisfied with the award. Hence he has filed the instant appeal before us. 4. Let us now consider the merit of the instant appeal in the facts of the present case. 5. Occurrence of the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle and the loss of the right leg of the applicant due to such accident are not disputed. The dispute is with regard to the findings of the learned Trial Judge about the age of the victim as 55 years at the time of the accident. 6. We find that various documents were submitted as a proof of age of the victim at the time of the said accident. The learned Tribunal while assessing the age of the victim relied upon the appellant's voter identity card and held that he was 55 years old at the time of such accident. While assessing the age of the victim, the learned Tribunal discarded the other document, i.e. the admit card issued by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, which shows that the victim was 51 years old at the time of such accident. 7. We have no hesitation to hold that the admit card issued by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education is a much more authentic and reliable document than the voter's identity card. 8. As such, we like to rely upon the admit card issued by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education for ascertaining the age of the victim at the time of such accident. If the admit card is accepted then we find that he was aged about 51 years at the time of such accident. 9. 8. As such, we like to rely upon the admit card issued by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education for ascertaining the age of the victim at the time of such accident. If the admit card is accepted then we find that he was aged about 51 years at the time of such accident. 9. By applying the structured formula in the second schedule under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, we hold that the appropriate multiplier will be 11 in the instant case. 10. Let us now ascertain the loss which the victim suffered due to such accident. 11. We find that at the time of such accident he used to get a sum of Rs. 11,507/- on account of his salary. In addition thereto he used to earn a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month on an average on account of overtime allowance. Applying the provision contained in schedule 1 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 we hold that since his right leg was amputated, the percentage of his loss of his earning capacity was 80%. Taking his salary as Rs. 11,507/- which is rounded to Rs. 12,000/- per month for the sake of convenience of calculation, we find that his annual loss of earning was Rs. 1,44,000/-. Since his loss of earning capacity was 80% due to such accident, then his actual loss of earning will be Rs. 1,15,200/-. If the said amount of Rs. 1,15,200/- is multiplied by 11, then his total loss of earning will be Rs. 12,67,200/-. In addition thereto we allow a further sum of Rs. 15,000/- which he spent for purchasing a cheaper quality of artificial limb which subsequently was found to be unsuitable for him. We also allow a sum of Rs. 29,050/- on account of loss of his earning during the treatment period of two months eighteen days. In addition thereto we also allow a further sum of Rs. 25,000/- on account of his medical expenses. Since he has lost his right leg, we also allow a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of pain and sufferings. It appears from the quotation issued by Endolite Prosthetic & Orthotic Centre that a sum of Rs. 2,09,150/- is required for replacement of the inappropriate and/or unsuitable artificial limb which the applicant purchased by spending a sum of Rs. 15,000/-. 12. We thus allow a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of pain and sufferings. It appears from the quotation issued by Endolite Prosthetic & Orthotic Centre that a sum of Rs. 2,09,150/- is required for replacement of the inappropriate and/or unsuitable artificial limb which the applicant purchased by spending a sum of Rs. 15,000/-. 12. We thus allow a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of replacement of such artificial limb of the victim as a one time measure. 13. We also find from evidence that he was unable to undertake overtime duty on account of loss of his limb due to such accident and as such, we hold that the claimant also suffered a loss of Rs. 36,000/- per year. The appellant said that he remained in service for a period of 7 years after the said accident. Thus, he could not earn overtime allowance during the remaining period of his service to the extent of Rs. 2,52,000/-. Thus, we hold that a further sum of Rs. 2,52,000/- is payable to him on account of the financial loss he suffered. 14. Thus, we hold that total loss of earning of the appellant was Rs. 18,88,250/-. 15. Before awarding the said compensation we cannot lose sight of the provision contained in Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 which provides that :- "(1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service; Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefit : Provided Further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. (2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability : (3) Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section. 16. 16. In view of such provision of the said Act, the claimant was retained in service for the rest of his service tenure and he did not lose his job. His salary was not reduced. If the salary which he received during his rest of his service period is taken into account, then we find that he received a sum of Rs. 10,08,000/- on account of his salary for the rest of his service period. 17. Considering the fact that he was retained in service and he received full salary for the rest of his service period, we hold that some amount should be deducted from the total amount of compensation payable to him. 18. We, thus, deduct a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- from the total compensation payable to him as he received full salary during the rest of his service period. 19. Thus, we hold that a sum of Rs. 12,88,250/- is payable to him on account of compensation. 20. Having regard to the fact that a sum of Rs. 2,50,400/- has already been received by the claimant/appellant from the insurance company, we direct the insurance company to pay the balance amount of Rs. 10,37,850/- to the claimant/appellant together with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e. 5th November, 2003, till realization thereof. 21. Such payment should be made to the claimant within six weeks from the date of communication of this order, by an account payee cheque drawn in favour of the petitioner, to be deposited before the learned Tribunal. 22. Let the lower court record be sent down to the learned Court below immediately. 23. The appeal and the connected application are, thus, disposed of.